Customer Reviews


2 Reviews
5 star:    (0)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 
Only search this product's reviews

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


4.0 out of 5 stars Affordable Fish Eye Lens
I wanted a fish eye (or near fish eye) lens for my still camera (Fujifilm Finepix S100FS). I looked at several lenses, read reviews, and narrowed my choices to three. I chose this Raynox mostly because of the price, and the fact that it would fit more than one lens thread size because of the way it attaches; kind of like a great big lens cap. It feels like it could get...
Published 9 months ago by Scott Canfield

versus
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Disappointment with Raynox Product
This review is not for this product specifically, but more on the quality of Raynox products themselves. I have included below the transcript from a series of e-mails between Raynox and myself. This is unedited, exactly as the exchange went. Needless to say, I am very unhappy with their product and their customer service, and I will never buy another one of their...
Published on October 14, 2004 by Glynn Clapsaddle


Most Helpful First | Newest First

4.0 out of 5 stars Affordable Fish Eye Lens, May 19, 2011
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: XL-3000PRO 0.3x 52-67mm Snap-On Semi-Fisheye Ultra Wide Lens (Electronics)
I wanted a fish eye (or near fish eye) lens for my still camera (Fujifilm Finepix S100FS). I looked at several lenses, read reviews, and narrowed my choices to three. I chose this Raynox mostly because of the price, and the fact that it would fit more than one lens thread size because of the way it attaches; kind of like a great big lens cap. It feels like it could get bumped off the camera fairly easily, but there is a place to attach a safety line to it if you would like. I have only used it at a couple events so far. I am happy with the results, and it has not unexpectedly fallen off the camera. I hesitated to buy this lens because it is sold as a lens for a video camera, but it does work fine on a still camera. The first time I used it, the camera would not focus because I did not have it set on Macro focus.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Disappointment with Raynox Product, October 14, 2004
This review is from: XL-3000PRO 0.3x 52-67mm Snap-On Semi-Fisheye Ultra Wide Lens (Electronics)
This review is not for this product specifically, but more on the quality of Raynox products themselves. I have included below the transcript from a series of e-mails between Raynox and myself. This is unedited, exactly as the exchange went. Needless to say, I am very unhappy with their product and their customer service, and I will never buy another one of their items. I offer my experience only to help others avoid a waste of money. Read my story and make up your own mind. But, at the very least, take careful consideration before buying one of their products. The one positive thing I will say about Raynox is that they DID respond to me in a very timely fashion, their first response was within 45 minutes of my e-mail. I just wish the content of the response would have been as pleasing as it's speed.

Me:

Within the past year, I have purchased two Raynox lenses for my Sony Mini-DV camcorder. I purchased the DVR-3000, for $120.45, and the DVR-5000, for $49.95. To say that I have been disappointed with these

products is an understatement. With the DVR-5000, the wide-angle lens, when I was zoomed-out completely, there was severe vignetting, and when zoomed in, the only clear part of the image was the very center.

Everything else was distorted and fuzzy. I put the DVR-5000 in my closet and purchased a competitor's lens, as I was already out of my 30 days since my purchase. Unfortunately, I did not need the DVR-3000

for several months. This past weekend, I used it at the San Diego Chargers football game to take 73 digital stills. These images looked fine on my LCD screen, but when I got home and downloaded them to my computer, I found the exact same problem that I had had with the other lens. But, this is a telephoto, I'm SUPPOSED to be able to zoom in. The images were all fuzzy and distorted, except for the very center.

These images are absolutely useless to me and have proven that I wasted almost $200 on Raynox product. Now, I have to purchase a competitor's lens, for a lot more money, and I am unable to do that at this

time. Therefore, not only am I out of my original investment, but I am losing business, as I am a professional videographer. I wanted to give Raynox an opportunity to correct this. Please have someone contact me by e- mail or phone.

Raynox:

I do not know what camera model you used but DVR-5000 is a standard quality wide-angle lens and like every conversion there is no " Perfect matching" for some camera models. The DVR-5000 works perfect.

I would suggest HD-5000PRO for present mini-DV camcorders. The DVR-3000 is not designed for digital stills and the quality is up to standard TV screen resolution.

Me:

I am currently using the Sony DCR-PC330. Now, my bigger complaint is with the DVR-3000. What am I supposed to do if my video is also fuzzy? It's not just the digital stills, and it's not a resolution problem. It's that the entire image is fuzzy and also has some color distortion.

Raynox:

Again, there are no "Perfect Matching" for some camera models.

Me:

Ok, I am just trying to understand this. The lens fits physically perfectly to my camera, without an adapter. What do you mean by "perfect matching" and how can I tell if that's the problem?

Raynox:

The DVR-3000 is long discontinued . The camcorder you are using is over 3 megapixels and not recommended to use such a lens .

Me:

Well, I can't say that I am exactly happy with Raynox's answer. You have basically said that the lens is not of a high enough quality to operate with my resolution, and we're only talking 3 megapixel here. I would still have to say that I will never buy another Raynox product. The fact remains that I now have to spend $250 on another lens and basically throw away the $120 Raynox lens I have already purchased.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product